Losing Close Games is a Bad Indicator

[Destro]

There are cases where you can have great players and still have a poor team. It is a team game, but all these ranking and heart or close does mean a whole lot if the games end with a loss. Just a place to be until you can join another team.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-22-2021, 09:57 AM)TJ528 Wrote: So I'd love to go back and revisit games from the Shula, Coslet, and LeBeau era and see how many of those games were "close games".

Shula had 52 losses.

26 of them were 1 score losses.

The NFL is designed to have a lot of close games. I think it was two years ago I checked out the entire season and if every team's 1 score losses were turned into wins, only 2 teams in the entire NFL would have a losing record and those teams would have been 7-9.

If you have a lot of 1 score losses, it isn't because you were close, it isn't bad luck. It just means you're not good.

[*jason*]

(09-22-2021, 04:03 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I always point out that the 2010 Bengals who were a mess and needed blown up lost a bunch of close games while the 2010 Packers won a bunch of close games and went on to win the SB.

Packers also had something like 15 guys on IR too... So much for the nobody can win with injuries excuse.

[hollodero]

Losing in blowouts would be an even worse indicator.

[KillerGoose]

(09-22-2021, 09:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Shula had 52 losses.

26 of them were 1 score losses.

The NFL is designed to have a lot of close games. I think it was two years ago I checked out the entire season and if every team's 1 score losses were turned into wins, only 2 teams in the entire NFL would have a losing record and those teams would have been 7-9.

If you have a lot of 1 score losses, it isn't because you were close, it isn't bad luck. It just means you're not good.

To back this up, over the last three seasons, only 12 teams logged a margin of victory of more than one score.

The most dominant team over that span of time according to MoV is the 2019 Baltimore Ravens, with an average MoV of 15.6 points per game. That kind of point differential in the NFL is seriously impressive.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2021, 09:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If you have a lot of 1 score losses, it isn't because you were close, it isn't bad luck. It just means you're not good.

Actually some of it is bad luck and the stats prove it.

When a team has a lot of very close losses or very close wins in one season (the study I saw was 3 points or less instead of "one score") then there is generally a regression to the mean the next season.  The teams that had a lot of close losses improve while the teams with lots of close wins decline.

But your point about most NFL games being decided by "one score or less" is accurate.

[fredtoast]

(09-22-2021, 10:03 PM)jason Wrote: Packers also had something like 15 guys on IR too... So much for the nobody can win with injuries excuse.

That is like saying "Tom Brady was a 6th round pick......So much for the claim that you have to use a first round pick to get a good QB."


Exceptions to the rule don't change the general rule.  Everyone from NFL front offices to the media to the Vegas sportsbooks know that injuries effect a teams ability to win.

[RunKijanaRun]

Sunday was not a “close game” and there was very little positive to take from it. Defensively, they benefitted from facing Fields for a majority of the game, and was as green as the turf he traversed. That pick 6 was just like finding a 10.00 bill in your pocket, and the deep TD to Chase was legit, which shows how absolutely disgusting our offensive gameplans and playcalls are.

OL is putrid. Joe has been tentative, inaccurate and even slower making decisions in the pocket than last year. Only Lac could have Burrow/Mixon/Chase/Higgins/Boyd and still fart his way to failure.

D? I don’t know. Better week 1, a little worse in week 2. Probably better than last year.

Shit, who cares if they lose close ones or blowouts. They have to stop losing. They tried to give the week 1 W away and they had no designs whatsoever on winning last week.

It’s going to be this way until they run Lac out of here, which will probably happen around the same time the uber and lyft cars are driven by Johnny Five.

I hate it here and I have nowhere else to go.

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2021, 11:46 AM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: Sunday was not a “close game” and there was very little positive to take from it.

Yes it was close.  Bears fans were really sweating it out at the end.

We outgained the Bears by 40 yards and handed them the game with turnovers that led to a defensive score.  Since Burrow had the third lowest interception percentage in the league last year and he threw zero opening day his 3 pick game looks more like an anomaly than a pattern.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-23-2021, 07:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Losing in blowouts would be an even worse indicator.

True. I have noticed that losing in blowouts drastically reduces your chances of winning games. 

[XenoMorph]

(09-23-2021, 07:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Losing in blowouts would be an even worse indicator.

right but at least we would know and save a few hours lol  j/k

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2021, 11:46 AM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: D? I don’t know. Better week 1, a little worse in week 2. Probably better than last year.

Sounds like you get all your knowledge from the Bengals gameday thread.

In week 2 the Bengals defense only allowed 206 total yards and one td.  That was the fewest yards allowed by a Bengal defense in 7 years.

[RunKijanaRun]

(09-23-2021, 11:53 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: True. I have noticed that losing in blowouts drastically reduces your chances of winning games. 

True, but losing a lot of close games gives the illusion of “we’re really close to being winners!” Someone who didn’t see last week’s game could have an entirely flawed perspective on how it went down.

In many cases it’s preferable to have your barn doors blown off consistently.

[fredtoast]

(09-23-2021, 12:13 PM)RunKijanaRun Wrote: True, but losing a lot of close games gives the illusion of “we’re really close to being winners!” Someone who didn’t see last week’s game could have an entirely flawed perspective on how it went down.

Correct.  Most people would not realize that our defense allowed the fewest yards in 7 years and the Bears had to have a defensive td to win a 3 point game.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(09-21-2021, 11:53 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: “We lost but we were close.”

Were we really?  No.  The eventual margin of victory may have been only a few points but losing close games has been the hallmark of the Bengals’ play since 2016 and it’s even worse under Zac Taylor.

Close games are lost by not converting on third down when on offense and not getting off the field after third down when on defense.  The Bengals are horrible on third down on either side of the ball.

The Bengals go for it on fourth down a lot because they’re faced with fourth down a lot.  This is due to shoddy play calling which disregards down and distance; just move those chains!  Sure, there are times where taking a shot downfield makes sense but not at the expense of giving up possession.

On defense the Bengals allow far too many third down conversions, even from third and ten — or more — situations. Lou Anarumo has the defense tackling better and playing better in general but the third down scheme remains weak.  Even on third and long somehow the opponent seems to convert.

Somehow Zac has to find a way to score early and often and put the game out of reach by halftime.  Right now nobody on the roster has the confidence of a winner and that’s sad.  I watched the Ravens the other night as they came back and beat the Chiefs and on both sides of the ball I saw purpose, energy, and most of all a cohesiveness which is lacking in Cincinnati.  Everything Baltimore did looked effortless.  The Bengals look like they are working hard but going nowhere.

Definitely agree, especially about losing close games being an indicator of a bad coach. Andy Reid wins close games, Zac Taylor
loses them. On Offense we need to get better on 1st and 2nd down so if we get into 3rd downs a lot they are 3rd and shorts and
are much easier to convert. On Defense we were the first D to make the Bears go 3 and out and the Vikings are very good on O.

Think the D will get it under control. My question is the Offense and if Taylor will either get better and learn or hand the playcalling
over to Brian Callahan which I think NEEDS to happen more than anything.

[hollodero]

(09-23-2021, 12:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Correct.  Most people would not realize that our defense allowed the fewest yards in 7 years and the Bears had to have a defensive td to win a 3 point game.

Plus 2 more interceptions and a fumble and a linebacker that hates picking up stuff.

Still makes me more optimistic than a 35-0

[*PhilHos*]

Saying the Bears game wasn't close is like saying the game against the Vikings wasn't close. Sure, it went into OT and we won on an Legs Over Easy McPherson FG, but we were up 21-7 midway thru the 3rd. CLEARLY, it wasn't a close game.

[fredtoast]

(09-24-2021, 09:33 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Saying the Bears game wasn't close is like saying the game against the Vikings wasn't close. Sure, it went into OT and we won on an Legs Over Easy McPherson FG, but we were up 21-7 midway thru the 3rd. CLEARLY, it wasn't a close game.

Rep